Looks like KLM will receive less new aircraft in the nearby future as Air France wants to shift some capacity to its upcoming LCC 'Boost'.

KLM will receive less new aircraft in the coming years as a result of the establishment of a low-cost, long-range airline for Air France.

An internal newsletter of the Dutch Traffic Fliers Association (VNV) shows that in future, Air France KLM wants to divide new long-haul aircraft according to a certain key between the two subsidiaries.

As much as I would like to see Boost succeed, I highly doubt it. Some sources say that the it will cater to both business and leisure travelers, and that it will fly from CDG (meaning landing fees etc. cost more than ORY). This means that prices won't be at a absolute minimum, like at Norwegian. I have no idea which customers they are trying to get onboard. Leisure travellers (who often go for the lowest prices) will get cheaper faires with Norwegian and the other handfull of LCC's that operate out of Paris, and the business travellers would just chose AirFrance mainline.

As much as I would like to see Boost succeed, I highly doubt it. Some sources say that the it will cater to both business and leisure travelers, and that it will fly from CDG (meaning landing fees etc. cost more than ORY). This means that prices won't be at a absolute minimum, like at Norwegian.

And Boost pilots and cabin crew will have the same wages as Air France pilots.

I would look at this article as biased. A lot of airlines have slowed down the renewal of the fleets in regards to the lower oil prices. If you put out such an article without showing numbers and dates, I look at it as an opinion piece rather than facts.

Wasn't the original plan that KLM receives a number of A350s??That is no longer mentioned in the article. This is why I have the feeling that KLM will get the Boeings as planned, but the A350s will go to Boost. Maybe not even the worst decision in terms of commonality at KLM (not having a small Airbus sub-fleet anymore once the A330s are withdrawn from service...).

Wasn't the original plan that KLM receives a number of A350s??That is no longer mentioned in the article. This is why I have the feeling that KLM will get the Boeings as planned, but the A350s will go to Boost. Maybe not even the worst decision in terms of commonality at KLM (not having a small Airbus sub-fleet anymore once the A330s are withdrawn from service...).

Brgds,Ka.

I heard rumors that the A350 isnot going to join KLM's fleet. If they are not going to be replaced with B787 than that will mean a reduction in capacity.

1) I don't understand the long haul, low cost trend amongst legacy carriers. It's unproven, barely profitable at the best of times and will further depress long haul yields. I'd also point out that the Qantas Group is the only airline group that has successfully managed to make long haul flying profitable with both it's legacy and LCC divisions over the long term.

2) Sick of the Air France bashing. It's well known that AFKL tries to load group costs onto AF to maximise the profits being earned through KL since the Dutch corporate tax rate is much lower.

3) Like with IAG and Level, I don't think it's a good idea to start yet another brand/AOC. Better to keep things simple and have the long haul low cost flying done under the Transavia brand.

Looks like KLM will receive less new aircraft in the nearby future as Air France wants to shift some capacity to its upcoming LCC 'Boost'.

This journalist (Yteke de Jong) has a horrible track record when it comes to reporting about KLM and/or AMS. If she is the only source (as in this case so far) it's best to ignore, or at least add "rumour" to the title, as more often than not it turns out to be completely false.

I would look at this article as biased. A lot of airlines have slowed down the renewal of the fleets in regards to the lower oil prices. If you put out such an article without showing numbers and dates, I look at it as an opinion piece rather than facts.

This newspaper 'De Telegraaf' is indeed biased when it comes to AF/KL. They were always negative about AF, and have spread many false rumors about AF having plans which would result in the demise of KL.

Jetty wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Looks like KLM will receive less new aircraft in the nearby future as Air France wants to shift some capacity to its upcoming LCC 'Boost'.

This journalist (Yteke de Jong) has a horrible track record when it comes to reporting about KLM and/or AMS. If she is the only source (as in this case so far) it's best to ignore, or at least add "rumour" to the title, as more often than not it turns out to be completely false.

Fully agree.

Dutchy wrote:

ka wrote:

Wasn't the original plan that KLM receives a number of A350s??That is no longer mentioned in the article. This is why I have the feeling that KLM will get the Boeings as planned, but the A350s will go to Boost. Maybe not even the worst decision in terms of commonality at KLM (not having a small Airbus sub-fleet anymore once the A330s are withdrawn from service...).

Brgds,Ka.

I heard rumors that the A350 isnot going to join KLM's fleet. If they are not going to be replaced with B787 than that will mean a reduction in capacity.

The reports of KL not getting any A350s are 2 years old. I'm quite sure this scenario was seriously contemplated. But KL's CEO has since repeatedly said KL was to receive A350s, the first in 2020.And indeed KL needs the A350s to finalize the retirement of the 747. The 787-10 would replace the A333s and one or two 747s, and the remaining 789s on order are not enough to replace the remaining 747s.

When it comes to replace the 77E at KL (this is still quite some time away), I'm sure KL will order more A350s than the 7 they now have on order.

Meaning the target is to have AF+Boost doing 61% of the flight hours and representing 61.8% of the seat per kilometer offered in the group in 2025/2026 agains 58.6 and 58.7% today.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

Meaning the target is to have AF+Boost doing 61% of the flight hours and representing 61.8% of the seat per kilometer offered in the group in 2025/2026 agains 58.6 and 58.7% today.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

That does mean that KLM will be stopped in fulfilling its potential. So I guess that is a conformation. Not the economic arguments will prevail, but whether the pilots can keep their position within Air France.

That does mean that KLM will be stopped in fulfilling its potential. So I guess that is a conformation. Not the economic arguments will prevail, but whether the pilots can keep their position within Air France.

Given the chaos we had at AMS a few weeks ago, I think it's wise not to grow KL too much further for the next few years.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

Of course their intention isn't to stop KLM growth. But arbitrary 'rebalancing' (with fixed ratio's set 10 years ahead) that lacks any economic merit must somehow cause a suboptimal distribution of planes in the group that either limits growth at AF or KL or causes AF or KL to grow too quick.

KLM currently has higher profits and load factors, lower costs and fewer strikes. Also the Dutch economy grows faster than that of France. If any 'rebalancing' is done common sense would surely suggest the balance has to shift further towards KL.

I have no idea which customers they are trying to get onboard. Leisure travellers (who often go for the lowest prices) will get cheaper faires with Norwegian and the other handfull of LCC's that operate out of Paris, and the business travellers would just chose AirFrance mainline.

The main target is "the millenials", poeple born between 1980 and 2000. Boost will replace AF on destination where AF is currently losing money. For those flight you will not have the choice between Boost and AF service it will be only Boost. We are speacking of : Bangkok, Tokyo-Haneda, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Bamako and Venise.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

Of course their intention isn't to stop KLM growth. But arbitrary 'rebalancing' (with fixed ratio's set 10 years ahead) that lacks any economic merit must somehow cause a suboptimal distribution of planes in the group that either limits growth at AF or KL or causes AF or KL to grow too quick.

KLM currently has higher profits and load factors, lower costs and fewer strikes. Also the Dutch economy grows faster than that of France. If any 'rebalancing' is done common sense would surely suggest the balance has to shift further towards KL.

That is why AF is not going to grow by itself. All the growth will be boost. The 28 aircraft will come directly from AF fleet. In a way, AF "negative" activity will be harsly reduced.

I agree with the people here saying that this article is purely based on being biased and no facts used here. Once AF/KL come out with their own press release about this than of course it's official and true. Let's wait and see what the plans are.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

Of course their intention isn't to stop KLM growth. But arbitrary 'rebalancing' (with fixed ratio's set 10 years ahead) that lacks any economic merit must somehow cause a suboptimal distribution of planes in the group that either limits growth at AF or KL or causes AF or KL to grow too quick.

KLM currently has higher profits and load factors, lower costs and fewer strikes. Also the Dutch economy grows faster than that of France. If any 'rebalancing' is done common sense would surely suggest the balance has to shift further towards KL.

That is why AF is not going to grow by itself. All the growth will be boost. The 28 aircraft will come directly from AF fleet. In a way, AF "negative" activity will be harsly reduced.

That might be a good solution given the problems at AF. But still any distribution of planes that is fixed years ahead is suboptimal economically. Being part of a larger group should create opportunities to be flexible and move resources as planes around to make optimal use of opportunities. At AF/KL the opposite happens. Also the demand of any balance by AF pilots is petty, what do they gain by KL having fewer planes? It's not like all passengers not flying via AMS will go to CDG instead. If they want more planes to should think about striking a bit less, that'll surely help AF to be successful again.

They don't want to stop KLM growth, they want to rebalance the activity ratio between AF+Boost and KLM in the coming years. Yes the first A350 are going to boost. Boost fleet in 2021 should look like that : 12 A321 + 6 A320 + 10 A359.

Of course their intention isn't to stop KLM growth. But arbitrary 'rebalancing' (with fixed ratio's set 10 years ahead) that lacks any economic merit must somehow cause a suboptimal distribution of planes in the group that either limits growth at AF or KL or causes AF or KL to grow too quick.

KLM currently has higher profits and load factors, lower costs and fewer strikes. Also the Dutch economy grows faster than that of France. If any 'rebalancing' is done common sense would surely suggest the balance has to shift further towards KL.

That is why AF is not going to grow by itself. All the growth will be boost. The 28 aircraft will come directly from AF fleet. In a way, AF "negative" activity will be harsly reduced.

On what exact basis is Boost going to be profitable, if the pilots and cabin crew are paid the same as with AF, use CDG and thus use AF infrastructure. What will be the basis of their success?

Of course their intention isn't to stop KLM growth. But arbitrary 'rebalancing' (with fixed ratio's set 10 years ahead) that lacks any economic merit must somehow cause a suboptimal distribution of planes in the group that either limits growth at AF or KL or causes AF or KL to grow too quick.

KLM currently has higher profits and load factors, lower costs and fewer strikes. Also the Dutch economy grows faster than that of France. If any 'rebalancing' is done common sense would surely suggest the balance has to shift further towards KL.

That is why AF is not going to grow by itself. All the growth will be boost. The 28 aircraft will come directly from AF fleet. In a way, AF "negative" activity will be harsly reduced.

On what exact basis is Boost going to be profitable, if the pilots and cabin crew are paid the same as with AF, use CDG and thus use AF infrastructure. What will be the basis of their success?

It will be AF pilotes, but they will fly more for the same revenue. The cabin crew will not have AF contracts. The front lavatories in the A350 will not be reserved to the crew, meaning they will supress other lavatories to add seats ...

The main target is "the millenials", poeple born between 1980 and 2000. Boost will replace AF on destination where AF is currently losing money. For those flight you will not have the choice between Boost and AF service it will be only Boost. We are speacking of : Bangkok, Tokyo-Haneda, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Bamako and Venise.

I have no idea which customers they are trying to get onboard. Leisure travellers (who often go for the lowest prices) will get cheaper faires with Norwegian and the other handfull of LCC's that operate out of Paris, and the business travellers would just chose AirFrance mainline.

The main target is "the millenials", poeple born between 1980 and 2000. Boost will replace AF on destination where AF is currently losing money. For those flight you will not have the choice between Boost and AF service it will be only Boost. We are speacking of : Bangkok, Tokyo-Haneda, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Bamako and Venise.

Where is your source regarding the replacement of these routes by Boost?? Other than Bangkok, Venice (which already sees Transavia from Orly) and potentially Rio, the other destinations (particularly Tokyo-Haneda, Buenos Aires and Bamako) are strong revenue flights for AF. Tokyo even offers the new Première product. I would see Boost as targeting more medium to long-haul low yielding tourist destinations such as BKK, the Dominican Republic, Cancun, San Jose, MLE (which AF is opening) as well as new routes to yet unserved destinations.And regarding rebalancing, let's not lose site of the fact the France is roughly 4x the size of the Netherlands population wise....so a larger domestic market of out-bound tourists.

The main target is "the millenials", poeple born between 1980 and 2000. Boost will replace AF on destination where AF is currently losing money. For those flight you will not have the choice between Boost and AF service it will be only Boost. We are speacking of : Bangkok, Tokyo-Haneda, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Bamako and Venise.

Venice? They will have a single short-haul destination?

No, with 18 planes from the A320 family there will be an entire short & medium haul network. Europe and North Africa will be served. And maybe even the Middle East?

Where is your source regarding the replacement of these routes by Boost?? Other than Bangkok, Venice (which already sees Transavia from Orly) and potentially Rio, the other destinations (particularly Tokyo-Haneda, Buenos Aires and Bamako) are strong revenue flights for AF. Tokyo even offers the new Première product. I would see Boost as targeting more medium to long-haul low yielding tourist destinations such as BKK, the Dominican Republic, Cancun, San Jose, MLE (which AF is opening) as well as new routes to yet unserved destinations.And regarding rebalancing, let's not lose site of the fact the France is roughly 4x the size of the Netherlands population wise....so a larger domestic market of out-bound tourists.

http://www.airfranceklm.com/sites/default/files/communiques/id_2017_afkl_def.pdfThe full presentation in english. Boost topic is from slide 73 to 77.

Actually in the AFKL official presentation, no mention is made of the cities you listed. In fact, they state clearly that the Boost routes will be concentrated on Asian routes (probably as a reponse to the ME3) and to new destinations not yet served by the Group.The video you show is an AF union video that makes baseless claims as to which cities will disappear from the AF network. This is to flame the fire and get union personnel to say no, rather than based on facts....I would be very surprised if AF ceases serving the likes of Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Rio, Bamako or even Venice... The first four are traditionally good yielding routes...

http://www.airfranceklm.com/sites/default/files/communiques/id_2017_afkl_def.pdfThe full presentation in english. Boost topic is from slide 73 to 77.

Actually in the AFKL official presentation, no mention is made of the cities you listed. In fact, they state clearly that the Boost routes will be concentrated on Asian routes (probably as a reponse to the ME3) and to new destinations not yet served by the Group.The video you show is an AF union video that makes baseless claims as to which cities will disappear from the AF network. This is to flame the fire and get union personnel to say no, rather than based on facts....I would be very surprised if AF ceases serving the likes of Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Rio, Bamako or even Venice... The first four are traditionally good yielding routes...

They are also routes where the competition from the destination airlines, hubs or other french airlines is harsh and Boost is a way to not cease serving them.

Boost sounds like a variation on the failed Song, Ted, and US Express experiments. AF/KL have strong positions in their home markets. They should leverage those advantages rather than diluting them with a new brand.

As much as I would like to see Boost succeed, I highly doubt it. Some sources say that the it will cater to both business and leisure travelers, and that it will fly from CDG (meaning landing fees etc. cost more than ORY). This means that prices won't be at a absolute minimum, like at Norwegian. I have no idea which customers they are trying to get onboard. Leisure travellers (who often go for the lowest prices) will get cheaper faires with Norwegian and the other handfull of LCC's that operate out of Paris, and the business travellers would just chose AirFrance mainline.

I think a good name for an airline within an airline would be SHAM. I should grab "ShamAir.com" and sell it to the highest bidder. LOL

Boost sounds like a variation on the failed Song, Ted, and US Express experiments. AF/KL have strong positions in their home markets. They should leverage those advantages rather than diluting them with a new brand.

To me it sounds just as vague and nondescript as Level, Snowflake, HOP!, Scoot, Up, Eurowings, Go and so on. What happened to all of LHs planned LCC subsidiaries, like Jump, Cloud or Sprint or whatever they were called?

I have no idea which customers they are trying to get onboard. Leisure travellers (who often go for the lowest prices) will get cheaper faires with Norwegian and the other handfull of LCC's that operate out of Paris, and the business travellers would just chose AirFrance mainline.

The main target is "the millenials", poeple born between 1980 and 2000. Boost will replace AF on destination where AF is currently losing money. For those flight you will not have the choice between Boost and AF service it will be only Boost. We are speacking of : Bangkok, Tokyo-Haneda, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, Bamako and Venise.

If Air France has a problem flying to Tokyo Haneda they have far bigger problems. Tokyo is a business route not a leisure one.

This is one airline company marriage Id like to see annulled. AF is dragging KL down, and has for years.

I fully agree. They call it rebalancing, but the market says otherwise. Those Air France guys just wish to keep everything French no matter if that's the most profitable or not. First comes their national pride, then comes profit. That's very annoying for the Dutch. Every time there's growth at KLM it has to be shifted to Air France because "it has to be French".

Back when Air France and KLM merged KLM would not have survived on it's own, but times have changed. If they'd break up now I'm sure KLM would survive, but I'm not sure about Air France. They might suffer the same fate as Alitalia. I don't see that happening to KLM.

AF-KLM was established at a time when KLM was ailing. The group did not simply enable KLM to recover, it enabled it to vastly expand and at a significantly greater pace than AF. KLM is still growing to this day.

When for instance Lufthansa took over Swiss, it made it shrink significantly. IAG also had Iberia shrink. But AF-KLM is apparently such a scourge to KLM.

I would look at this article as biased. A lot of airlines have slowed down the renewal of the fleets in regards to the lower oil prices. If you put out such an article without showing numbers and dates, I look at it as an opinion piece rather than facts.

This newspaper 'De Telegraaf' is indeed biased when it comes to AF/KL. They were always negative about AF, and have spread many false rumors about AF having plans which would result in the demise of KL.

Jetty wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Looks like KLM will receive less new aircraft in the nearby future as Air France wants to shift some capacity to its upcoming LCC 'Boost'.

This journalist (Yteke de Jong) has a horrible track record when it comes to reporting about KLM and/or AMS. If she is the only source (as in this case so far) it's best to ignore, or at least add "rumour" to the title, as more often than not it turns out to be completely false.

Fully agree.

Dutchy wrote:

ka wrote:

Wasn't the original plan that KLM receives a number of A350s??That is no longer mentioned in the article. This is why I have the feeling that KLM will get the Boeings as planned, but the A350s will go to Boost. Maybe not even the worst decision in terms of commonality at KLM (not having a small Airbus sub-fleet anymore once the A330s are withdrawn from service...).

Brgds,Ka.

I heard rumors that the A350 isnot going to join KLM's fleet. If they are not going to be replaced with B787 than that will mean a reduction in capacity.

The reports of KL not getting any A350s are 2 years old. I'm quite sure this scenario was seriously contemplated. But KL's CEO has since repeatedly said KL was to receive A350s, the first in 2020.And indeed KL needs the A350s to finalize the retirement of the 747. The 787-10 would replace the A333s and one or two 747s, and the remaining 789s on order are not enough to replace the remaining 747s.

When it comes to replace the 77E at KL (this is still quite some time away), I'm sure KL will order more A350s than the 7 they now have on order.

The last I read, and if I don't make mistake was here in this forum, KL will not retire the entire 330 fleet. I can't remember how much and if will be 333 or 332 or mix, but some of them they will stay. So If this truth is possible that are enough 787-10 to replace the 747.

I just don't understand the infatuation the European legacy holding companies have with brands. I get the strong brand and national identity that AF/BA/IB/KL/LH and LX although it was SR have but I really don't understand the the need to have so many brands that are doing nearly the exact same thing except some are low-cost and others are pretend high cost. Let's not pretend that BA/KL/IB in particular are some sort of "super premium" airline that can't be tarnished with discount cabins. And its not like the European transport history doesn't have experience with combining white-glove with steerage in the same transport--just look at the historic long-distance European train and steam-ship industry. LH and AF/KL both have American partners with experience in staring a discount unit (CALite, Song, Ted, etc.) to show this doesn't work.

Unless the groups are trying to say that their core airline brands aren't that strong it just makes sense to have a branded class and then create aircraft that are Y heavy or Y/W only vs. W/J balanced or W/J heavy and move them to the appropriate routes. Why all the expense of creating a new airline brand unless this is really the starting point of getting rid of AF as a brand. Don't get we wrong, as wonderful as AF, etc are as brands, the national identify brand makes a lot less sense in a pan-European world. Now, French "style and sophistication" itself is a brand and therefore there is no reason why AF isn't the brand--a la Norwegian. My point merely being that so many brands makes less sense, adds complexity, costs and hasn't proven to be successful.

Long term, it just makes more sense to have a singe pan-european brand--LuftKontinent if you will. See how LAN, now LATAM and Avianca have done this. Virgin to a lesser extent has also shown how to bridge brands to other places and most of the different Virgin airlines have successfully merged a hybrid of near-first class with medium and low cost carriers.

I just don't understand the infatuation the European legacy holding companies have with brands. I get the strong brand and national identity that AF/BA/IB/KL/LH and LX although it was SR have but I really don't understand the the need to have so many brands that are doing nearly the exact same thing except some are low-cost and others are pretend high cost.

It isn't about the infatuation of holding companies or brand image, but about unions. Staff at new brands/entities can have new contracts, while new staff at old brands/entities is often entitled to the same contract as current staff, which makes it impossible to compete due to high costs. When you look at the underlying motivation for AF/Boost, this explains it all. Talk about millennials is only a way to give a positive spin to it. It's no coincidence that KL doesn't need their own brand for millennials. KL staff has proven to be more reasonable and Dutch labor law is more flexible than that of France, hence KL can hire new staff for the current brand while still being competitive.

My point merely being that so many brands makes less sense, adds complexity, costs and hasn't proven to be successful.

It definitively adds complexity, but wages make up a large part of overall costs so it's still cheaper at the bottom line

Sorry if this sounds a bit offtopic... but why did AF/KLM decide to "kill" Martinair?Couldn't Martinair be used as the group's leisure carrier? I mean, build up a fleet of 737s and 767s again, order some 787s for a near future and send them to holiday destinations in the Mediterranean and Caribbean. Wouldn't it be a good competition for TUI Nederland, for example?!

I wonder when people will understand:Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190.Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.Airbii does not exist.

Sorry if this sounds a bit offtopic... but why did AF/KLM decide to "kill" Martinair?Couldn't Martinair be used as the group's leisure carrier? I mean, build up a fleet of 737s and 767s again, order some 787s for a near future and send them to holiday destinations in the Mediterranean and Caribbean. Wouldn't it be a good competition for TUI Nederland, for example?!

Good question. I think their charter/leisure division was losing money, so they killed their passenger service, they more or less did the same with Transavia, KLM rebranded it in an LCC. As for their freight business, 2008 crash and subsequential downturn, and probably Air France personnel wanted Air France to have some freight business themselves, hence two 77F for AF and MP: 1 * 744BCF and 3 * 744ERF.